In a judgment with far-reaching effect on numerous cases
pending under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Supreme Court has
held that a public servant cannot by default claim legal protection of
prior sanction against prosecution.
Under Section 197
of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), no court should take cognisance
of criminal charges against a public servant unless previous sanction
to prosecute him is received from a competent authority. This safeguard
is meant to help government servants perform their duties honestly
without fear of malicious prosecution. However, the provision has
largely become a ruse to delay prosecution in corruption cases.
Dealing
with such a case, which has been hanging fire since 1999, a Bench of
Justices Kurian Joseph and A.K. Goel said protection under Section 197
of CrPC was only available to a public servant for the honest discharge
of his duty. Prosecution for corruption should be exemplary and without
delay, the apex court observed.
Besides, this
protection cannot be claimed immediately after a complaint is lodged.
The question of prior sanction would be considered later, during stages
in the criminal trial, as and when the need arises, the apex court
observed.
“Public servants have, in fact, been
treated as special category under Section 197 of CrPC to protect them
from malicious or vexatious prosecution. Such protection from harassment
is given in public interest; the same cannot be treated as a shield to
protect corrupt officials,” Justice Joseph, who authored the judgment,
observed.
The court noted that procedural provisions
relating to sanction must be construed in such a manner as to advance
the causes of honesty and justice and good governance as opposed to
escalation of corruption.
Citing a 2015 Supreme Court
precedent, Justice Joseph wrote: “The question relating to the need of
sanction under Section 197 of the code is not necessarily to be
considered as soon as the complaint is lodged and on the allegations
contained therein. This question may arise at any stage of the
proceeding. The question whether sanction is necessary or not may have
to be determined from stage to stage.”
The judgment
came in a clutch of criminal appeals filed by the Andhra Pradesh police
in 2013 against a High Court order quashing criminal proceedings against
two revenue officials who successfully claimed protection under Section
197 of CrPC.
The duo figured among 41 people,
including revenue officials, stamp vendors and document writers, against
whom the police registered an FIR in 1999 for allegedly manipulating
registers and undervaluing property, causing loss to the government.
Setting
aside the High Court order to quash the criminal proceedings against
them, Justice Joseph, for the Bench, held that the trial should be
completed expeditiously before December 31 this year.
“Sec. 197 has largely become a ruse to delay prosecution in corruption cases”
‘Not a shield for corrupt officials’
“Public servants have, in fact, been treated as special
category under Section 197 of CrPC to protect them from malicious or
vexatious prosecution. Such protection from harassment is given in
public interest; the same cannot be treated as a shield to protect
corrupt officials,” Justice Joseph, who authored the judgment, observed.
The
court noted that procedural provisions relating to sanction must be
construed in such a manner as to advance the causes of honesty and
justice and good governance as opposed to escalation of corruption.
Citing
a 2015 Supreme Court precedent, Justice Joseph wrote: “The question
relating to the need of sanction under Section 197 of the code is not
necessarily to be considered as soon as the complaint is lodged and on
the allegations contained therein.”
The judgment came
in a clutch of criminal appeals filed by the Andhra Pradesh police in
2013 against a High Court order quashing criminal proceedings against
two revenue officials who successfully claimed protection under Section
197 of CrPC.
The duo figured among 41 people,
including revenue officials, stamp vendors and document writers, against
whom the police registered an FIR in 1999 for allegedly manipulating
registers and undervaluing property, causing loss to the government.
Setting
aside the High Court order to quash the criminal proceedings against
them, Justice Joseph, for the Bench, held that the trial should be
completed expeditiously before December 31 this year.
